Inconvenience: Smith v. JHCP
The Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog examines issues in medical malpractice cases from Maryland appellate court opinions. In this post the issue is whether a trial court properly exercised its discretion when it granted a motion to transfer a medical malpractice action from Baltimore City to Baltimore County on the ground of forum non conveniens. The case is Smith et al. v. Johns Hopkins Community Physicians, Inc., 209 Md. App. 406 (2013). The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (now the Appellate Court of Maryland) issued this reported opinion.
Factual Background
A surviving spouse, her three children, and also the estate of a deceased patient brought a medical malpractice and wrongful death action. The lawsuit alleged that negligent medical care caused the decedent’s death. The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
Location facts would play a role in a forum non conveniens motion. The decedent received primary medical care over a nine-year period at an office located in White Marsh. This medical facility is located within Baltimore County. The treating primary care physician was an employee of the defendant medical provider. In addition, the doctor performed all medical care and examinations within Baltimore County.
Furthermore, the key parties maintained clear geographic ties to Baltimore County rather than Baltimore City. The surviving spouse resided in Baltimore County during the entire nine-year course of treatment. She then continued living in the same home after her husband passed away. One child also lived at home in Baltimore County with her. Moreover, the other two surviving children lived in Harford County and Delaware. The primary treating physician also lived in Baltimore County. Additionally, the corporate headquarters for the defendant medical provider sat in White Marsh, within Baltimore County. However, none of the parties lived or maintained primary operations in Baltimore City. The only connection to Baltimore City was the office location of the law firm representing the plaintiffs.
The defendant filed a motion to transfer the case to Baltimore County. The defendant specifically based this motion on Maryland Rule 2-327(c), forum non conveniens, citing the convenience of parties and witnesses. The circuit court judge then granted the transfer motion without holding a hearing or issuing a detailed written opinion. The plaintiffs then filed an expedited appeal to challenge the venue transfer.
Parties’ Arguments
The plaintiffs raised two main arguments on appeal to challenge the venue transfer. Firstly, they asserted a substantive argument. They claimed that a plaintiff has the right to choose among proper venues. The plaintiffs contended that Baltimore City offered convenience for potential expert witnesses. They also suggested out-of-state expert witnesses could travel easily through local transit hubs located in Baltimore City. Secondly, the plaintiffs raised a procedural argument. They argued that the trial judge failed to hold a hearing or articulate specifically the findings on the record. They asserted that this silence meant the trial court failed to exercise true discretion, which constitutes an automatic abuse of discretion.
The defendant argued that the trial court acted well within its wide discretion on forum non conveniens. They pointed out that every party, fact witness, and medical event was tied directly to Baltimore County. The defendant also emphasized that the plaintiffs did not reside in Baltimore City. Therefore, the initial choice of forum carried little weight. The defendant further noted that two identified expert witnesses lived and worked in Baltimore County. Finally, the defendant maintained that Maryland procedural rules do not require a hearing or formal written findings to grant a transfer motion.
Court’s Ruling on Forum Non Conveniens
The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the trial court’s transfer order. The appellate court explained that the grant of a transfer motion under forum non conveniens is immediately appealable as a final judgment. The court evaluated the ruling using the abuse of discretion standard.
| Analytical Area | Legal Rule Applied | Application to Current Case |
|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff Choice | Deference is reduced when the plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum. | Plaintiffs resided in Baltimore County, Harford County, and Delaware. Baltimore City had no ties to the claim. |
| Convenience (Forum Non Conveniens) | Courts prioritize lay witnesses and fact witnesses over retained professional experts. | All factual treatment occurred in Baltimore County. Key medical witnesses lived in Baltimore County. |
| Public Interest | Local court congestion and jury duty burdens should belong to the community with real ties. | Baltimore City courts should not bear the burden of a trial involving events exclusive to Baltimore County. |
| Procedure | Hearings are not mandatory, and judges are presumed to know and correctly apply the law. | The trial judge was not required to hold a hearing or set out detailed steps in her thought process. |
It concluded that Baltimore County was by far the more convenient forum. The court held that the trial judge properly exercised discretion without committing any procedural error.
Commentary by Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Mark Kopec on Forum Non Conveniens
The appellate court’s ruling is supported by precedent and legal principles. However, one cannot help but notice a distinct element of irony in this procedural battle. The parties engaged in intense, expedited appellate litigation solely to dispute geographic convenience between two neighboring courts. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City and the Circuit Court for Baltimore County sit only a short drive apart from each other. Lawyers, litigants, and experts travel between these two jurisdictions daily. Yet, both sides invested substantial time and resources litigating whether a courtroom in Towson was markedly more convenient than a courtroom in Downtown Baltimore.
This dynamic underscores how venue decisions and forum non conveniens shape tactical advantages in medical malpractice cases. While the physical distance between the courtrooms is trivial, the perceived differences in jury pools and docket management remain significant drivers of strategy for both defense and plaintiff counsel.
You can read additional Blog posts on procedure issues, including:
Mark Kopec is a top-rated Baltimore medical malpractice lawyer. Contact us at 800-604-0704 to speak directly with Attorney Kopec in a free consultation. The Kopec Law Firm is in Baltimore and helps clients throughout Maryland and Washington, D.C. Thank you for reading the Baltimore Medical Malpractice Lawyer Blog.